Aquino III vs. Comelec, g.r. No. 189793, April 7, 2010

0

Higit Pa

Susunod na Blog»

Bumuo ng Blog

Mag-sign in

Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind I'M A SCHIZOPHRENIC! I'M HAPPY! I'M PROUD TO BE ONE! HOME

Home

POSTS RSS

Political Law

COMMENTS RSS

enter your keywords here...

EDIT

Aquino III vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010

Aquino III vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010 Post under case digests, Political Law at Tuesday, January 31, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind

Facts: The said case was filed by the petitioners by way of a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It was addressed to nullify and declared as unconstitutional, R.A. 9716 entitled “An Act Reapportioning the Composition of the First (1st) and Second Legislative Districts (2nd) in the province of Camarines Sur and Thereby Creating a New Legislative District from such Reapportionment.” Said Act originated from House Bill No. 4264, and it was enacted by President Macapagal-Arroyo. Effectuating the act, it has divided the existing four districts, and apportioned districts shall form additional district where the new first district shall be composed of 176,383 population count.

Share

FOLLOW BY EMAIL

Email address... Submit

Subscribe in a reader

CATEGORIES bar exam questionnaire (8) case digests (612) Civil Law (123) Commercial Law (89) Criminal Law (102)

Petitioners contend that the reapportionment runs afoul of the explicit constitutional standard with a minimum population of 250,000 for the creation of a legislative district under Section 5 (3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. It was emphasized as well by the petitioners that if population is less than that provided by the Constitution, it must be stricken-down for non-compliance with the minimum population requirement, unless otherwise fixed by law.

labor law (95) Legal Ethics (89) MCQ (28) personal (6) Political Law (163)

Respondents have argued that the petitioners are guilty of two fatal technical effects: first, error in choosing to assail R.A. 9716 via the Remedy of Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. And second, petitioners have no locus standi to question the constitutionality of R.A. 9716. Issue: Whether or not Republic Act No. 9716 is unconstitutional and therefore null and void, or whether or not a population of 250,000 is an indispensable constitutional requirement for the creation of a new legislative district in a province. Held: It was ruled that the said Act is constitutional. The plain and clear distinction between a city and a province was explained under the second sentence of Section 5 (3) of the Constitution. It states that a province is entitled into a representative, with nothing was

Followers (9)

promo/discounts/freebies (56) Psychiatry (5) Remedial Law (112) Taxation (85) villarama doctrines (103)

There was an error in this gadget

Follow this blog

mentioned about a population. While in cities, a minimum population of 250,000 must first be satisfied. In 2007, CamSur had a population of 1,693,821 making the province entitled to two additional districts from the present of four. Based on the formulation of Ordinance, other than population, the results of the apportionment were valid. And lastly, other factors were mentioned during the deliberations of House Bill No. 4264.

0 COMMENTS: ON "AQUINO III VS. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 189793, APRIL 7, 2010"

POST A COMMENT

Enter your comment...

Comment as:

Publish

Google Account

Preview

Newer Post Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Home

Older Post

Live Traffic Feed

A visitor from Quezon City viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind: Aquino III vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, A visitorApril from 7, Quezon 2010"City 46 secs ago"Scribbles of a viewed Lunatic Mind: Aquino III vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, A visitorApril from 7, Imus, 2010" Cavite 1 min ago"Scribbles of a viewed Lunatic Mind: Reyes vs. CA, G.R. 118233, December A visitor from 10, 1999" Quezon 3 mins City ago viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind: Lung Center of the Philippines vs. Quezon City [GR No. A visitorJune from29, Philippines 144104 2004]" 5 viewed "Scribbles of a mins ago Lunatic Mind: Abakada Guro Party List, et al vs Exec. A visitor Sec.from Ermita" Ugong 7 mins Norte, ago Quezon City viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind: Gaston vs. Republic Planters A visitorBank" from Philippines 12 mins ago viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind: People vs. Dela Cruz" 15 Quezon mins agoCity A visitor from viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind: Baviera v. Paglinawan, et al., G.R. No. 168380, A visitorFebruary from Makati, 8, 2007" 15 mins ago Mindoro Occidental viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind: Edaño v. Asdala, December A visitor from 6, 2010" Pasig,16 mins ago Pampanga viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind: Esquivel vs. Real-time view · Menu

374,067

RECOMMENDED READS bethere2day blog-links-exchange BLOG-PH.com Maruism NURSINGnle Philippine Databank Scire Licet The Digester Uberdigests

ARCHIVE Archive

Case

Digests

Scribbles of a Luna Mind I'M A SCHIZOPHRENIC! I'M HAPPY! I'M PROUD TO BE ONE! HOME

Home

POSTS RSS

Political Law

Aquino III vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, April

Aquino III vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 2010 Post under case digests, Political Law

Facts: The said case was filed by the pe Petition for Certiorari and Court. It was addressed to nullify and declar R.A. 9716 entitled “An First (1st) and Second Legislative Districts (2 Camarines Sur and Thereby Creating a New L such Reapportionment.”

Said Act originated from House Bill No. 4264, President Macapagal-Arroyo. Effectuating the existing four districts, and apportioned district district where the new first district shall be population count.

Petitioners contend that the reapportionme explicit constitutional standard with a mi 250,000 for the creation of a legislative distri Article VI of the 1987 Constitution petitioners that if population is less than Constitution, it must be stricken-down for no minimum population

Respondents have argued that the petitioners technical effects: first, error in choosing to as Remedy of Certiorari and Court. And second, petitioners have no locus constitutionality of R.A. 9716.

DISCLAIMER

POPULAR POSTS

All contents provided on this blog are for informational/educational purposes only. Coffeeafficionado makes no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not also be liable for any errors or omissions on the information provided nor for the availability of this information.

BANAT vs. COMELEC , GR 17927 [ April 21, 2009 ] Facts: Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) filed before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a petitio... Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs. PBM, 51 SCRA 189

FOLLOWERS

Join this site with Google Friend Connect

Members (15)

Philippine Blooming Employees Organization (PBMEO) decided to stage a mass demonstration Facts:

in front of Malacañang to express their gri... Abakada Guro Party List, et al vs Exec. Sec. Ermita Coffeeafficionado claims no credit for any Facts: On May 24, 2005, the President signed into law image/video/ads featured on this blog. They are all copyrighted to its site owners. If you own rights to any of Republic Act 9337 or the VAT Reform Act. Before the images/videos featured on this blog, and do not wish the law took effect on July 1, 2005,... them to appear on this site, contact Coffeeafficionado thru Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil 726 email and they will be immediately removed. Facts: Pursuant to the power delegated to it by the Legislature, the Director of Public Works promulgated rules and regulations pertainin... Garcia vs. Mata Facts: Garcia was a reserve officer on active duty who

Already a member? Sign in

was reversed to inactive status. He filed an action for mandamus to compel the DND ... Copyright 2009. Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind - WPBoxedTech Theme Design by Technology Tricks for Health Coupons. Bloggerized by Free Blogger Template - Sponsored by Graphic ZONe and Technology Info